Pages

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

By Bobby

It seems the legacy of George Walker Bush will be one where the previous administration of Bill Clinton ran so many "me now" policies that seemed to go peacefully under his watch that when he left office, he let the country collapse under the next administration.

The Peace Dividend. Clinton's demolition of the military (as shown in numerous base closings, including one in Charleston) led to weaknesses exposed in later eras that he never patched. Ethiopian Airways 961 was hijacked, and Al Qaeda terrorists killed Leslie Ann Shedd, a senior CIA officer at 28, and officials from Israeli Aviation Industries, and Ukrainian intelligence and air force divisions. Usama's Henchmen threw the bodies off and no investigation was ordered into this hijacking that killed a US official who could have provided information that could have stopped further attacks.

The Clinton era policies led to ineptitude when Usama's Henchmen successfully killed over 200 in two August 7, 1998 bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam. Little, if any, legitimate retaliation was ordered. In January 2000, Al Qaeda terrorists went on a boat in an attempt to sink an American ship. That resulted in disaster when the homicide bombers and their homicide boat sank. Nine months later, a similar operation led to the USS Cole bombing near Yemen. Nothing was done about it.

The confidence of Al Qaeda, and the "Gorelick Wall" of Attorney General Reno's left-hand girl led to not understanding any of the terrorists' motives, and that resulted in the next administration seeing homicide bombers attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings, and a fourth plan likely headed to Washington stopped. This led to the nation having to spend more to rebuild our security that Clinton dismantled, and attacking terrorists everywhere. Seven years later, terrorists have yet to attack the US. But our spending now was a byproduct of Clinton cuts that led to weaknesses.

The Dangerous Judiciary. Clinton era judges (which still dominate thanks to the actions of Leahy and Reid in blocking any legitimate judge) created a policy that effectively moved the nation's capital to Bruxelles, Belgique. These judges have overturned thousands of local laws, especially in justice on criminals and conduct, by creating a "constitutional" right to sodomy, special protections to 16 and 17 year old criminals, such as the video poker parlor murderers of the mid-1990's in South Carolina, and a free excuse for criminals to avoid penalty for their crime. In those cases, and others, the judges have declared the laws of states and the country unconstitutional, and declaring the laws of Europe override the laws of the United States, the 50 states, and of the communities. Now criminals can just claim "insanity" to avoid punishment because Clinton judges state European laws override US laws, and wicked sodomy is now "constitutionally" protected, as are teens who murder adults because they know they cannot be punished severely.

Furthermore, we do not understand for now what their next move could be. They could declare constitutional things such as future laws that state radio, television, and the internet can be regulated for political content (something liberals want to see; see the Obama fight against WGN Radio, the NRA, and Fox News), or even state because of European laws, the ban on infanticide be declared illegal.

Justice is no longer served in the United States when foreign laws usurp US laws, especially since any policies can be overturned on a judge stating laws of foreign countries usurp US law.

The Economic Crash. The "community organisers" behind the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 were back in the Clinton era, and when Republicans were ready to take over Congress, Clinton seized control and instead of submitting proposals doomed to failure, Clinton officials (including Treasury Secretary Rubin) rewrote policies that favoured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Race, not ability to pay, became the new government standard for who could earn a loan. Because of the rules on capital to back investments (banks must hold four times more capital to back investments than Fannie and Freddie -- $2.50 for every $100, versus $10 for every $100 for banks), the government was able to boom as they controlled the market for mortgages since the government had special policies.

Furthermore, this led to an excessive number of defaults and a crashing economy that the Clintons created, but could wait years to bloom. Considering who has run the two government-run credit institutions (mostly Clinton officials), it is a halfway house for them before what they hope is an Obama administration will be able to keep them in power to create more corruption.

These Clinton and Carter era policies led to the financial crisis of subprime loans, and Mike Pence led the charge to order change. Then, Dictator Pelosi, using the same tactics used to push through a 40% minimum wage hike, absurd Detroit-killing "energy policy" that will lead to the demise of the US auto market in an attempt to appease the Gaia worshippers, and to lose wars to terrorists, tried the same "up or down only" move on this socialist bailout. Pence, who should become the Speaker of the House, led the charge to stop it. I think Pence has more sense in his policy, and has become the maverick.

In all three situations shown here, we have seen where Clinton era policies have led to doom in a future administration, and we are currently paying for three different Clinton era disasters. Liberals think the best way to fix it is to create more problems, when they are causing the problem. Do we want Barack Obama, a "community organiser" in the form similar to ACORN, which is the organisation that would have benefited from this rejected policy, running the country and turning it over to these crooks? He was not even planning to participate in this deal, but when John McCain forced Obama into the war room, Obama took over planning for the Democrats. Obama's policy was pathetic that it led to the revolt in Congress that may have just created another game-changing moment but shows the legacy of the Clinton years is one hard price we must pay still for its absurdity.

NOTE: The spelling of the terrorist organisations and names is consistent with policies of the United States government.

Monday, September 29, 2008

By Mitchell

We live in an era in which the main goal of many celebrities is to be seen. Whether at sporting events, cultural galas, or in interviews on TV, the celebrity is there for one purpose and one purpose only: self-promotion. (Think, for example, of the number of stars of Fox series you're likely to see at the World Series this year. Do you think they can even tell a sacrifice fly from a stolen base?) You can imagine this probably gets tiring even for the celebrity, and you can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number who actually have any kind of interest in the event they're attending. But there is the odd celebrity who attends an event not to be seen, but simply because they want to be there; they're acting not as the cool star of the moment, but as a fan with a genuine interest in what's going on. Jack Nicholson and the Lakers is one example; Paul Newman and auto racing was another.

Paul Newman got the bug for racing somewhere around the time he made Winning, a melodrama about race drivers and their loves on and off the track. Before long Newman was learning all he could about cars and drivers and what made them both tick, and eventually he became a champion race driver himself, winning several SCCA titles, finishing second at LeMans, and - at age 70 - was part of the winning team in the 24 Hours of Daytona. He was also a successful car owner, wininng several Indy car championships with drivers such as Mario Andretti, and was a regular at race tracks everywhere (including BIR in Brainerd, which is where I saw him). To the racing world, Paul Newman was no celebrity, out there simply to be seen - he was one of them, having traded the greasepaint for motor oil and sweat and callouses from gripping the steering wheel, and thus earned the respect and affection of his peers.

With Paul Newman, what you saw was what you got. Politically he was an extreme liberal, but he was an honest one who put his money where his mouth was. While other celebrities fumed and threatened to leave the country if their candidate lost, one can imagine that Newman simply surveyed the landscape and decided that just meant he'd have to sell a few more jars of spaghetti sauce to fund the causes he held close to his heart, to make sure the outcome was different next time. We didn't buy his sauces because we didn't support his causes, but at least we knew where the money would go.

Oh yeah, he made a few movies as well. He starred in television, making a name for himself on the live anthology dramas of the 50s, and made the transition to the big screen in style. Eventually, as his stature rose, his mere presence in a movie would give it a touch of class that raised it above the mundane. Take, for example, his appearance in a pair of B detective movies of the 60s and 70s, Harperand The Drowning Pool. Based on Ross Macdonald's hard-boiled P.I. Lew Archer (Newman had the last name changed to Harper because he thought names beginning with H were lucky), these were good movies with big-name casts (Lauren Bacall, Robert Wagner, and Newman's wife Joanne Woodward, for example), but hardly the kind of "prestige" movies that the biggest stars make nowadays. Nevertheless, Newman's presence made them something more, made them worth watching. It was the same with Slap Shot, the bawdy hockey comedy. Not many actors could sell a movie about hockey, let alone make it a success, but Newman (along with the Hanson brothers, to be sure) helped make it into a classic.

And then there was Newman the rebel, in movies such as Cool Hand Luke. Maybe it was there that people saw the real Paul Newman, a man defiant in his own beliefs, refusing to go along for the sake of getting along, with the kind of "FU" attitude that we all secretly (or not-so-secretly) admire. Newman himself displayed that attitude throughout life, from the twinkle in his famous blue eyes to the smirk he would frequently flash at others, to his refusal to become part of Hollywood society. At the end of that movie he famously said, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate," and that's become a kind of metaphor for our entire culture nowadays. Rare is the person in any walk of life who can truly communicate with others, and when we find one who can, we admire them all the more.

Perhaps that's what it was about Paul Newman, and why people mourn him today. Liberals mourn the loss of an activist, the racing world a driver and owner, and movie fans a star who often held them in thrall. For all those people and many more, Paul Newman communicated with them and made them a part of his world for just a little while.

On second thought, I'm not sure that was it at all. I think it was that Paul Newman became a part of their world, came into their lives for that little while, and made it better for his being a part of it.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

By Drew

We assume that our audience is a discerning and sophisticated one, and that you don't always need us to provide talking points or prompts regarding a point of interest. Therefore, since I don't have the time to explore these issues to the extent I would like, I recommend them to you for further edification and discussion:

From last year (H/T NRO), Fr. Edward Oakes provided this fascinating discussion of the relationship (if that is the right word) between faith and doubt. "Are faith and doubt inherently incompatible, or are they necessary components in a single act of trust in God? Are they inevitably paired, like day and night; or is doubt a temptation that indicates, at best, a lack of vigor in the act of faith? If one doubts, is one already on the road toward unbelief?" He assembles, for the (apparently) opposing viewpoints, none other than John Henry Newman and Joseph Ratzinger. Pay particular attention to the discussion of Mother Teresa and her struggle with the darkness of faith. Why did she feel this overwhelming state of abandonment? Was she being called, ala St. John of the Cross, to a greater union with Christ? In fact, suggested one of her spiritual directors, she had already achieved that union: "only it was union with Christ’s own darkness on the cross." We often talk about our willingness to follow Christ wherever He leads us, but how many of us are willing to go there? Read more to find out where "there" is.

And from this very month's issue of First Things, there's a review of Elvin Lim's book The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush. As John McWhorter, the revierer, points out, this is not an excuse for another trashing of W's intellect; rather, it is an exploration of the "dumbing down" of presidential rhetoric through the years. Lim puts much of the blame on presidential speechwriters, specifically the phenomenon of a speechwriter who is hired only to write words without having any part in the formation of the policy about which he writes. McWhorter agrees with this but goes farther, exploring the our contemporary culture of sound bites and applause lines and musing on the general growth of anti-intellectualism and decline of rhetoric across the (American) board. As a writer myself, I must admit that this bears some weight. One seldom gets the chance to verbally explore any issue with any depth whatsoever, even in a conversation around the water cooler, without being interrupted or being forced to try to "score points" rather than truly investigating the subject. This is something that is increasingly best left to the written word. I freely allow as to how with the written word one often has to struggle with the need of injecting a human emotion into a static, even mute, word (hence the advent of the emoticon to take the edge off the dullness of a potentially misconstrued phrase), and nobody is suggesting that emails should replace conversation altogether (although, regretfully, text messaging may be doing just that, in addition to turning us into functional illiterates). Nevertheless, a writer would be a fool if he suggested that there wasn't a power to the written word that couldn't be found elsewhere, wouldn't he? That is, if you've been able to stay with me this far. :)

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

By Mitchell

With all due modesty, I probably know more than the avearge bear about television history, not to mention knowing a little bit about politics on the side, but even I hadn't heard about this:

Joe Biden's denunciation of his own campaign's ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.

He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis."When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

As Reason's Jesse Walker footnotes it: "And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, 'Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?'"

I tell you, it's getting harder and harder to be a satirist nowadays. It all sounds too real. . .

Thursday, September 11, 2008

By Bobby

On October 13, 2001, the South Carolina Stingrays of the ECHL formally retired the jersey of Mark Bavis, who was killed along with fellow Los Angeles Kings scout Garrett (Ace) Bailey on United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower at 0903.

Pictured at left: Rep. Henry Brown joins members of the Stingrays staff as Bavis' #12 is retired.

At right: The banner at the North Charleston Coliseum, the home ice of the Stingrays, is placed in another corner of the arena.

By Mitchell

The New York Observer has a great profile of Hollywood conservative Andrew Breitbart, and there are a couple of sentences that describe for me so well why I've gotten back into the political game, at least for this election.

This is why I feel so comfortable in the conservative movement,” said Mr. Breitbart, who is 39, and a father of four children. “People are willing to agree to disagree. They’re willing to disagree on the fundamental issues of our time, argue about them, fight against each other and at the end of the day say, ‘Okay well we agree about these things and we disagree about these things.’ Compare that to the Hollywood left, they were on the forefront of dethroning Joseph Lieberman as the conscience of the senate. In 2000 he was the conscience of the senate and for disagreeing on one thing, he could not be more uniformly reviled by this group of people.

“I’m telling you they’re uninteresting, they’re vicious, they’re vitriolic, they’re really, really not good people. I’m willing to say that on the record. You could probe them scientifically and anthropologically and prove that they’re not good people. They’re not acting on sound judgement, and what they’ve done to those people that disagree with them, whether they be Leiberman democrats or Scoop Jackson liberals, whether they’re Blue Dog democrats – they’ve been shut out of the party as these people do cocaine off of everybody’s buttocks and tell everybody that they need to create a sustainable future. The level of hypocrisy, I go, I’ve seen Fellini movies where I feel like I’m watching Little House on the Prairie compared to these people.”

I particularly enjoy that last line, about how Fellini movies are becoming more real than what passes for real nowadays. I work with someone, an amiable lefty, who consistently refers to Sarah Palin's son Trig as "it." I felt like pointing out that not only was this "it" a baby, he had a gender, and even an actual name. I didn't say that, however, because I value my job. And in an office where you're surrounded by lefties, you need to be very cautious with your opinions. It's not just Hollywood, folks.

Of course, that didn't stop me from putting my McCain button on my cube wall, and it's not going to stop me from wearing a "McCain-Palin" t-shirt into the office on November 5. Whatever happens then will be worth it. . .

By Bobby

While he led the Miners to 14 NCAA Tournament appearances, seven NIT and Western Athletic Conference appearances, and a 719-353 record, including a 1997 induction into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, his best memory may have been the 1966 NCAA Championship team. Facing Adolph Rupp and his all-white starting five at Kentucky (including a future NBA championship winning head coach), Haskins sent five blacks on his starting five to face the legendary Wildcats. While controversial at the time, the 72-65 win at Cole Field House in College Park, MD, made Haskins a legend by showing race, in an era of race riots, should never be part of any recruiting reasonings, which has led to open recruiting in colleges and more integrated teams.

That tenacity inspired the team forty years later to the Disney film "Glory Road" about the team, and a Wheaties box which wasn't permitted when because of collegiate amateurism rules -- but as the players were in their 60's or had been deceased, and because of the release of the movie, the decision was made to give the team their own Wheaties box.

Overall, Don Haskins changed college basketball for the better by taking down racial barriers against a notorious racist of the time. It also continued the push against racism that continues today. Could you imagine teams refusing to recruit players because of the colour of the skin, when instead the recruiting should be denied because of their academic results and ability to meld with the team?

Sunday, September 7, 2008

By Bobby

Here we go again with the Oval Office.

Last year, I warned Britney Spears was "Toxic" enough for a trip to the Oval Office, yet the toxicity of MTV and its no-talents was extremely close to that of another MTV show this summer, the Dave Attell-hosted revival of Sony Pictures Television's classic The Gong Show.

This year MTV wants Miss Spears to make another Gong worthy performance that reminded me of a satire I wrote in barnstorming years ago (it has been edited). Please be warned this is what many would call today a "fan fic", and any use of real names is coincidental, and it was written nearly a decade ago.

Dr. Laura: He is the most immoral man I have ever heard in his routine, in just eight seconds.Kathy and Darrell (smile at Dr. Laura.) (Singing): "She's got a new attitude . . . " (a reference to the theme song of Dr. Schlessinger's radio programme.)

Darrell: That is too much for me. My girls are going to be mad at him so I must stop it (throws the handle) NOW!Dr. Laura: Way to go. "So now I'll walk . . . a different road" (a reference to Miss Troccoli's song)Kathy: Ahem. True. Dr. Laura!

Score: Gong, Waltrip

Act 4: Britney Spears

Dr. Laura. She looks like she's ready for someone to knock her up. Very disgusting outfit -- Rolling Stone or else.Darrell: That is too raunchy for my daughters.Kathy: My goodness. If that's the type of talent we are to see . . . it's pathetic. One, two, Earnhardt!*

Score: Gong, all three

Act 5: Snoop Dogg

All three: Disgusting.Darrell: I have the book there and here's his criminal record . . .Kathy: I'm not Mike Joy . . .Dr. Laura: But I want to learn Mr. Broadus' rap sheet.Darrell: Accomplice to murder . . . rape . . . violent arrest . . .Kathy: What a pun!

Score: Gong, all three

Act 6: Spice Girls

Three: "If you wannabe gonged, just try to be bad."Darrell: Another pun . . . you ladies are so much fun.Mrs. Waltrip: SmartMr. Bishop (Dr. Laura Schlessinger's husband): They are smart cookies.

Score: Gong, all three

The winner of the prize: None. Everyone was gonged.

*****

That little excerpt from a satire I wrote in college came back to me whilst thinking of the outrageous MTV Video Music Awards, especially since Miss Spears has been invited to open the 2008 event. Worse yet, MTV is attempting to find a feminine lip-locker for another wild pop star, Kathryn Hudson** and the song that infuriated Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Goldberg in a recent episode of The O'Reilly Factor.

Factor the disgust of Miss Spears and Miss Hudson, the continuing raunch and inappropriateness of the lyrics on MTV and other cultural rot of pop music, and you can understand the disgust of what MTV provides. Sadly, today's generation believes this rot is appropriate for even church performances when it deserves to be called to the Oval Office. What gives?

Just another cultural rot at the MTV Video Music Awards, no less.

NOTE: The MTV family of networks include MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, CMT, Spike, TV Land, LOGO (the homosexual channel where Barack Obama chose to debate his Democratic rivals, but not Fox News), BET (while management split BET from MTV Networks, it is only a 'shadow' move; BET is part of the same group; they aired the DNC but not the RNC), and the brand extensions of these channels.

* This joke was a popular joke at the time this was written, and was mentioned at a National Press Club luncheon in 1998 when the senior Mr. Earnhardt spoke at the National Press Club (three NSCS champions -- Stewart (spoke in 2003) and Johnson (spoke in July) have been keynotes at the event). Notable speakers at the Press Club have included three generations of Cousteaus.

** In order to prevent confusion with the actress Kate Hudson, she pulled off the same stage-name trick as Nelson Souto Maior and Ayrton Da Silva, and similar to Bruno Lalli (Da Silva's nephew; son of Da Silva's sister Vivienne) and Nelson Ângelo Souto Maior (Souto Maior's son) . The senior Sotomaior and Da Silva used their mother's maiden name, while the junior Souto Maior and Lalli used their grandmother's maiden name, a reference to their father and uncle, respectively. The singer Miss Hudson did not use the trick when she released her first album, but that label went under. When she worked with her present producers, to prevent confusion, she went with her mother's maiden name.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

By Bobby

In recent weeks we heard about the controversy over the Chinese Communists swapping out a girl set to sing "Hymn to the Motherland" at the Peking Bird's Nest, the fake fireworks show placed on-air by the Peking television organisers as part of the Peking Olympics, and now even the Sydney Symphony Orchestra admitted their 2000 performance at the Summer Olympics was faked.

Now it seems I observed last night on C-SPAN a third major faked performance at an event, this time at the RNC. Colorado native and former teen pop queen Rachael Lampa (born 8 Jan 1985), six days younger than Lewis Hamilton (born 2 Jan 1985) and slightly less than four months older than Kyle Busch (born 2 May 1985), seemingly had her performance faked despite one acoustical guitar on stage. The way she spoke into the microphone after the "performance" had all the looks of a faked performance.

Add this to what is surely to happen at the MTV Video Music Awards, and I wonder why faking performances, something that has become trendy in churches, is now everywhere in our society.

Out of respect, I generally do not refer to Kyle Busch with "Rowdy". That term is used in relation to a tribute to the late Bobby Hamilton, Sr that Busch used in 2006. Busch had a Craftsman Truck for a 2006 racesimilar to an early Rowdy Burns car in the movie Days of Thunder. This was intended to be a tribute for the 48-year old driver who was involved ina fight with neck cancer, one which he would ultimately lose. The #51 Busch uses in late model and truck racing, along with the "Rowdy" tag on the roof of those vehicles, is his tribute.

By Mitchell

I wanted to sit this election out. I really did. I wasn't even going to register to vote. But then, as is so often the case, events conspired against me.

First, I was told that Barack Obama was the Messiah, the Second Coming. I looked at the cult of personality that surrounded Obama, the way his supporters had elevated him to some kind of deified icon, and that was enough to give me pause.

I looked at the people Obama hung around with - convicted crooks like Tony Rezko, racists like Jeremiah Wright, and former terrorists like Bill Ayers - and concluded that he was nothing more than a typical crooked Chicago politician. At best.

I watched at how his devoted followers turned into cheap thugs, trying to stamp out any discussion of issues that reflected poorly on the Chosen One. I wondered, not for the first time, what would happen to the Fairness Doctrine, and the future of free political speech, if Obama were elected.

I listened to what he said about Russia, about Iran and Iraq. I listened to his wife, talking about how "mean" the United States was, all the while mulling over how "mean" Obama's own followers were. I wondered if I really wanted as president someone who, in Jean Kirkpatrick's memorable words, would "blame America first."

I looked at Obama's record on abortion, and his attempt to cover it up. I wondered if I'd be able to live with myself if I didn't do something to try and stop this man from becoming president.

You see, the Founders never intended for the presidency to become a cult of personality. Washington explicitly addressed this in his choice of the simple title, "Mr. President." They knew, as do we, that when a country bases its leadership on such a cult, only bad things can happen. They would have thought of men such as Caesar and the Sun King. We would reference Stalin and Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini and Mao and all those, regardless of political persuasion, who put themselves above any kind of law.

The problem with the cult of personality lies not just with the leader. In fact, I might venture that the major issue is with the leader's followers, who in their idolatry will tolerate any contradiction, any extreme, any action desired by their beloved. They often go two or three steps further, taking unilateral action on behalf of The One. This may not even be what the leader wants - but by that time he becomes powerless to control the passions of his own followers, who may even throw him over should they become convinced that he has betrayed his own ideals - or rather, the ideals which they have conceived for him. In Obama's remarkable arrogance I detect something of the man who thinks he can control the mob, that he can bend them to his every whim. This is not only foolish, it is dangerous. And this country cannot afford to have a fool for a president.

And so it's come to this. Longtime readers know I've never been enthusiastic about John McCain. In fact, I've even questioned his desire to become president. I'm not sure I'd like John McCain's America all that much. (Although if his choice of running mates means anything, I may have underestimated the old boy.)

But I do know this: while I might be disappointed by John McCain's America, I'm absolutely terrified by Barack Obama's America. (As a note to any of you out there who might be wondering, it has nothing at all to do with him being black, and everything to do with him being liberal, egotistical, inexperienced, anti-American, etc.)

So here I am, almost against my will. As you can see from our endorsement button at the bottom of the sidebar, I've come over to McCain's side - even if, as Whittaker Chambers put it, I'm joining the losing side. But I'm not so sure about that. I still have an abiding faith, perhaps somewhat misplaced to be sure, in the great experiment that is America, and in her people. I have faith that, when push comes to shove, they're going to reject the man who, as Fred Thompson said last night, is the most liberal, most inexperienced man ever nominated for president. They're going to turn aside a man who wants to dismantle the American heritage and remake it in his own likeness: that of the blame America crowd, of a liberalism that borders on socialism, of an inhumanity toward the unborn, of a man whose supporters frown on free speech. A man and campaign, in short, that represents the darkness that lies beneath the surface of America. I still believe the American people will turn away from it before it's too late.

At least, I hope and pray that is so. That's about all any of us can do.